Sushasaks needed for Sushasan:Ram Madhav

(Text of the concluding speech delivered by Sri Ram Madhav at the Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini workshop on ‘Quality Manpower for Good Governance’ on 26-05-12 at MewDelhi)

After 60 years of experience with governance in India more and more
people feel that it is not working. This system of governance is not
delivering.

What is after all the ultimate objective of governance? It is the
Yogakshema – security and welfare of the people. Acharya Chanakya, in
his seminal treatise Artha Shastra, delineated two principle functions
of the government and administration: one is Vitta Shastra – the science
of managing wealth; and the second is Danda Neeti – the security
policy. The government and administration should strive to secure for
its people ample wellbeing and security from internal and external
threats.

After 60 years of Independence where do people of India stand
today? We are one of the poorest nations in the world with over 612
million people – that is a staggering 50% of our population – suffering
from multidimensional poverty. India stands at 161st position
in terms of per capita GDP of the countries of the world. Our per
capita GDP is $ 3500. We are behind even war-torn countries like Iraq,
whose per capita GDP stands at $ 3800. Qatar has the highest GDP per
capita of $ 160,000. USA, in its worst financial condition last year,
registered a GDP of around $ 48,000. China has more than double the GDP
than ours at $ 7500.

It is not just the question of GDP alone, because the GDP can
sometimes be misleading. If we look at the actual figures the picture is
much more horrifying. The World Bank has set $ 1.25 – roughly INR 70 –
per day as the International Poverty Line. A whopping 42.5% population
of India lives below this poverty benchmark. Remember, 42.5% in India
means around 500 million people.

Our own Government has set a much lower benchmark for poverty.
According to Montek Singh Ahluwalia led Planning Commission of India
earning INR 20 in urban areas and INR 11 in rural areas can catapult you
above the poverty line. The Supreme Court of India had frowned at the
utterly low benchmark and demanded from the government an explanation as
to how can one subsist on such horrendously low income figures.

But the real story is something else. Even this low benchmark for
BPL (Below Poverty Line) couldn’t produce encouraging results. The
Planning Commission claims that the poverty levels have come down from
37.5% to 32%. That means even after taking such low figures our poor
population who can’t earn even INR 20 a day are around 400 million.

Yet we register an impressive growth rate of around 9% annually.
Last year the Forbes magazine announced that India has 55 billionaires.
Three of them – Lakshmi Mittal of the Ispat Group, Mukesh Ambani of
Reliance Industries and Azim Premji of Wipro – are among the top 50 of
the world. It points to the growing disparity between the rich and poor
in the country. Several top executives in our country earn INR 6 million
in a year. That puts their daily income at around INR 15000. And 400
million Indians subsist on just INR 20 a day. The difference is 750
times.

In Mahabharata the king was advised that Dharma – Rule of Law –
cannot be sustained in the face of not only the penury of the people but
also over-affluence.

‘Abhavova prabhavova yatra nastyarthakamayoh

Samaje swatmarupeshu dharmachakra pravartanam’

- The Dharma Chakra – Rule of Law – will prevail only when there is
neither shortage nor excess of Artha – the prosperity and Kama – the
desires in a society

Whose failure is this? Certainly the system that we have created
has not produced the desired results. Two most important wings of the
Government – the Executive and the Legislature – have to shoulder this
responsibility. A serious rethinking is needed in order to ensure that
equitable distribution of wealth is possible. Bold and path-breaking
reforms need to be envisioned.

But the problem is that those who have the power to reform the
system have developed a vested interest in the existing model. They will
find ways to protect their vested interest even while attempting to
tinker with the system here and there. That is why neither the Socialism
of the first 30 years had helped us nor the liberalization of the last
30 years.

Woodrow Wilson – former President of America – was the first senior
leader to talk seriously about administrative reforms. His seminal work
on the theme had led to development of a complete discipline of ‘Public
Administration’. He insisted upon separating politics and
administration. He advocated for a dichotomy of politics and
administration. But is that really an answer today?

The politicians will argue that without their control the
administration will simply go berserk. Moreover a politician can be
removed in five years if he doesn’t deliver whereas an administrator
cannot be. But then the administrator argues that it is too much of
political intervention that is preventing proper delivery by the
administration. Latest case in point is the Supreme Court mandated
Police Act. The new Acts drafted by several states witnessed huge tussle
between the political class and the police over the control of the
police administration. While the political class wants control over
police administration for obvious reasons the police administration
wants to get rid of not only the political control but also the control
of civilian bureaucracy. It showcased how entrenched the vested
interests are when it comes to reforming the system.

But one thing appears to be certain. The role of political
involvement in a society should shrink. It was Chanakya who explicitly
stated that the best government is one which governs the least. In our
times renowned management guru Peter Drucker emphasized this aspect in
his writings. “The government can’t do everything” he insisted. He
called upon the governments of the world to understand what they can do
and give up on what they can’t do.

What we need today is less of government. Karl Marx looked at the
administration and bureaucracy as instruments of exploitation in the
hands of the ruling class. That may be a bit far fetched but the fact
remains that concentration of powers in the hands of a few in Delhi and
in various state capitals leads to severe anomalies. We are
experiencing them day in and day out. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia described
Civil Services bureaucracy as the cancer of our polity. What Marx and
Lohia said about the bureaucracy should be taken in a context. We need
to decentralize the powers of authority. Let there be decentralization
of powers to various rungs.

The success of the western democracies lies in their decentralized
power structure. As Lohia said, the answer to non-functioning democracy
is not corporatization but more democracy. Delegation of more powers to
lower rungs of governance is an important reform that needs to be given a
try.

In mid-80s we introduced the Panchayat Raj reforms. But it remained
only a half-hearted measure, more of political expediency than real
reform. Under Panchayat Raj reforms the Union Government sought to
bypass State Governments – most of which in 80s and 90s had been
opposition-ruled ones – to provide funds directly to Village Panchayats.
What is needed is not funds alone, but delegation of powers. In western
democracies a County or a City Municipality enjoys enormous freedom and
authority. But in our system a village has no say even in decisions
like whether the said village should have a liquor shop or not.
Everything is decided at a State capital or the national capital.

This is another way to reduce corruption and red tape too. The
more the decentralization is the less the scope for corruption would be.
Delivery also would improve because of the limitations of jurisdiction
and local factors like acquaintance etc.

It calls for reorientation of our training mechanism also. A
bottom-up training model should be developed where the functionaries of a
Village Panchayat also get training similar to the administrators of a
state or central bureaucracy.

The bottomline should be a small government. In the last few years
governments in India have adapted some innovative methods. There is a
marked increase in PPP – Public Private Partnership projects. Several
infrastructure projects have now been handed over to private operators
under PPP scheme. In one state the officials claimed that while the
government-owned infrastructure corporation has projects worth 2000
crores under its belt the projects under PPP scheme like highways,
expressways and flyways etc are worth 28000 crores.

No doubt private participation brings in efficiency and speed. But
certain pitfalls have to be kept in mind while granting such projects to
private parties. The same state government is contemplating handing
over PHCs – Primary Health Centers – that provide for basic health needs
of the people in rural areas, to private companies under PPP scheme. In
some states key public services like water supply are being handed over
to private – sometimes foreign companies.

This move ought to be pondered over. Providing basic public
services like health, water supply etc is the primary responsibility of
the government. It collects taxes from the public in order to deliver
these services. Key factor in these services is that they should be
treated as services in true sense. However if a private party is handed
over this crucial area it wouldn’t look at it as a non-profit service.
For that matter no private company would do work as a charity.
Commodification of basic human needs like water is fraught with serious
consequences.

Hence a new PPP model should also be thought of. That is Public
Public Participation. The government can hand over certain functions to
the people themselves. A shining example is the construction of over
140,000 check dams in Gujarat wherein the government got direct
participation of the people of all the beneficiary villages. The dams
could be completed with great efficiency in record time and with less
input costs.

The bureaucracy needs to be encouraged towards such new methods by
which neither corporatization nor privatization but public participation
in the administration is promoted. Sadly here again no vested interest
can be served if public replaces private. Hence rather than encouraging
and rewarding officials who attempt such innovative methods we come
across cases where the officials have been punished for the same.

All this boils down to one critical issue – the sensitivity in the
administration. Swami Vivekananda had exhorted the reformers to have
intense feeling for the subjects of their reform. “Feel from the depth
of your heart”, he proclaimed, “Do you feel? Do you feel that millions
are starving today and millions have been starving for ages? Do you
feel…. That ignorance has come upon this holy land like a dark cloud?
Does it make you restless? Does it make you sleepless? Has it entered
your blood, coursing through your veins become almost consonant with
your heartbeat? Have you become almost mad with that one idea of the
misery of your people and forgotten about your name, fame and everything
else?”

Today our administration lacks that ‘feeling’. It has become
utterly insensitive to the trials and tribulations of ordinary
citizens.

Chanakya proclaimed in Artha Shastra that the happiness of the king
lies in the happiness of his subjects. But what we see today is just
the opposite. Our governance is happy and nonchalant while tens of
millions suffer in misery and deprivation.

Sushasan – Good Governance – is possible only when we have Sushasak
– Good Administrators. We must strive to create them in large numbers.